mid-14c., “generous,” also, late 14c., “selfless; noble, nobly born; abundant,” and, early 15c., in a bad sense “extravagant, unrestrained,” from Old French liberal “befitting free men, noble, generous, willing, zealous” (12c.), from Latin liberalis “noble, gracious, munificent, generous,” literally “of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free man,” from liber “free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious,” from PIE *leudh-ero- (source of Greek eleutheros “free”), probably originally “belonging to the people” (though the precise semantic development is obscure), and a suffixed form of the base *leudh- “people” (cognates: Old Church Slavonic ljudu, Lithuanian liaudis, Old English leod, German Leute “nation, people;” Old High German liut “person, people”) but literally “to mount up, to grow.”

With the meaning “free from restraint in speech or action,” liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning “free from prejudice, tolerant,” which emerged 1776-88.

The original meaning of liberal was noble, and thus synonymous with aryan.

Originally based on two main principles: liberty (freedom from constraints on speech and thoughts) and equality (every human born possessing “natural rights”, ala John Locke).

Contemporary, judaized liberalism is actually the opposite – granting special preferences to “protected classes”, and defining special “hate crimes” for offenses against them.

Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings.

Liberalism thus developed in opposition to the long-standing socio-political status quo in Europe, overturning and destroying it. In retrospect it was not a natural expression of European nature, but represented a revolution, a turn toward jewish rule and the complete destruction of Europeans which looms today.

The notion that liberalism seeks equality is a fraud. The reality is that it elevates non-Whites above Whites – jews are the archetype, elevated first and highest, above everyone else.

With the rise of the Enlightenment, the word (liberal) acquired decisively more positive undertones, being defined as “free from narrow prejudice” in 1781 and “free from bigotry” in 1823.[13] In 1815, the first use of the word liberalism appeared in English.[14] By the middle of the 19th century, liberal started to be used as a politicised term for parties and movements all over the world.

The shift in meaning and spread of liberalism corresponds/correlates with the emancipation of jews. Tolerance and freedom from prejudice and bigotry enabled the jews to more easily infiltrate, manipulate and exploit White society. Here we see the beginnings of anti-”racism”.

During the twentieth century, liberal ideas spread even further, as liberal democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars. Liberalism also survived major ideological challenges from new opponents, such as fascism and communism.

The jews won those wars – securing and entrenching jewish power while disempowering Europeans. Communism was a jewish project, not an opponent of liberalism. They share major features, including central banking, internationalism, and an Orwellian drive for equality (metastasizing into anti-”racism” and ultimately anti-Whitism).

As such, the meaning of the word “liberalism” began to diverge in different parts of the world. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies.”

These contradictory meanings reflect a different emphasis on freedom versus equality (which are at odds).

What liberalism supposedly means:

Despite these variations, liberal thought does exhibit a few definite and fundamental conceptions. At its very root, liberalism is a philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society. Political philosopher John Gray identified the common strands in liberal thought as being individualist, egalitarian, meliorist, and universalist. The individualist element avers the ethical primacy of the human being against the pressures of social collectivism, the egalitarian element assigns the same moral worth and status to all individuals, the meliorist element asserts that successive generations can improve their sociopolitical arrangements, and the universalist element affirms the moral unity of the human species and marginalises local cultural differences.

This is the “philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society” which Whites are propagandized to believe.

Meliorism is an idea in metaphysical thinking holding that progress is a real concept leading to an improvement of the world. It holds that humans can, through their interference with processes that would otherwise be natural, produce an outcome which is an improvement over the aforementioned natural one.

The real, jewish liberalism is completely different. It is not individualist; it is collectivist (group/bloc-oriented, identity politics, partisan politics). It is not egalitarian; non-Whites are collectively elevated above Whites, Whites are blamed for “racism”/privilege. It is not meliorist; dengeneracy is promoted and celebrated, Whites excelling or progressing is regarded as evidence of “racism”/privilege. It is not universalist; it sets everyone, including Whites, against Whites.

Liberalism, as a “philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society”, has become entangled with democracy.

Liberal democracy is a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of liberalism, i.e. protecting the rights of minorities and, especially, the individual. It is characterised by fair, free, and competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all persons.

7 Responses

In the national anthem of Kaiser-Germany, it says that the free man is the foundation of the Reich.
This contradicts the current understanding that monarchies always oppress the citizens and people cannot be free, other than in a Jewish led democracy.
I imagine Hitler singing the anthem and shouting “Heil dem Kaiser”. (If I recall correctly, he stated that in Mein Kampf).

What is Liberalism?
Published on April 8, 2014 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio
—

Porter, at The Kakistocracy, describes how it works in practice:

Liberalism is two jews and a black voting on which white to have for lunch;

Conservatism is a well-armed white enforcing the vote.
—
In 1961 the poet Robert Frost remarked:

A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.
——————-

Good quotes there Tan on capturing an essence of the modern liberal.

For me, liberalism, as practiced by Whites across the Western world is a destructive (some call it suicidal) meme that has its roots in our Christian heritage that jews have exploited.

Turn the other cheek, and so on.

Christianity started out as a slave religion, and remains a slave religion, that tells its believers to endure all suffering because they will be rewarded in “heaven” when they die. Such deeply embedded stupidity over so many centuries is why liberalism flourishes and is killing us now.

Katana
Christianity started out as a slave religion, and remains a slave religion, that tells its believers to endure all suffering because they will be rewarded in “heaven” when they die. Such deeply embedded stupidity over so many centuries is why liberalism flourishes and is killing us now.

Not so! There is nothing ‘Liberal’ about true Christianity. Katana, you have described jeudeo-christianity which is a masquerade of the real thing and the best religion the jews can buy.

True Christianity found in Christian Identity is patriotic and racially aware. Aware that the jews are not the people of the Old Testament, were never Hebrews or Israelites [who were white] and that Jesus was not a jew.
There is a huge cognitive disconnect when Whites are able to see through jewish lies, deception and hypocrisy in politics, in their global domination and our enslavement and destruction but yet naively accept that the jews are telling the truth about the Bible and their racial origins. The real ‘deeply embedded stupidity’ is that you choose to believe them.

Most people do not have strong political beliefs. They vote mainly according to what they think is in their personal interest. Half of them think that more income redistribution is in their interest, while the other half think it isn’t. More and more White people also realize that race-replacement and anti-White policies are not in their interest. But their vote has little to do with ideology.

My dictionary defines liberalism as “a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution”. But I think most voters don’t care about that. They are not trying to oppose or speed up “social progress”. They simply want more money for themselves.

Strong ideological beliefs are developed in political circles, not in the general population. So, we have to make a distinction between liberal theories and practical policies. For the voters, the important thing is income redistribution. For the politicized theorists, the important thing is sexual and racial issues. My conclusion is that left-wing political parties probably have both radical activists who try to push gay marriage and race-replacement, and day to day managers who try to stick to the redistribution policies. The reason for their redistribution policies is not an idealistic desire to help the poor. It is simply a way to keep the voters, and to breed more non-Whites.

The media want to create an association in our minds between “the left” and things like diversity and gay marriage. Actually it is an artificial combination. Most Blacks and Whites who vote for the left do not support immigration and same sex marriage. They are not liberal in that way.

When my dictionary says that liberalism is about social progress, it forgets to say that “social progress” has been redefined by the Jews in the last 50 years. Social progress used to be about helping the lower classes who were seen as victims of society and of capitalism. But now, the white lower class has been reclassified as part of the oppressing race. It is targeted for replacement in the name of the new conception of social progress. Many left wing voters still think that social progress is about income redistribution. But in the main political parties, in colleges and in the media, social progress now centers around sexual and racial issues. Also, the Jewish left used to claim that they were the champions of freedom. And now, their priority is to shut us up.

So, I think the word “liberalism” no longer means anything. It doesn’t refer to a coherent ideology. The Jews pretend to be liberals, which they are not. And the White liberals pretend they still believe in something, but they defer to the Jewish agenda and are held tightly in check. The incredible thing is how the non-Jews have accepted to go along with a new agenda that contradicts their former ideals.

Instead of studying liberalism, maybe we should start studying how dictatorship works, and how the whole population of a country can come under the rule of a small hostile minority.

Armor, your understanding and the way you express that understanding are an inspiration – correct and clear.

In this you anticipated where I was going next:

So, I think the word “liberalism” no longer means anything. It doesn’t refer to a coherent ideology. The Jews pretend to be liberals, which they are not. And the White liberals pretend they still believe in something, but they defer to the Jewish agenda and are held tightly in check. The incredible thing is how the non-Jews have accepted to go along with a new agenda that contradicts their former ideals.

Instead of studying liberalism, maybe we should start studying how dictatorship works, and how the whole population of a country can come under the rule of a small hostile minority.

In a nutshell, when people describe “liberalism” as suicidal, what they’re talking about (and denying, consciously or not) is actually the genocidal effect it’s having on Whites. The White “liberals” who aid and abet “liberalism” certainly aren’t suicidal, and neither are the “liberal” jews. Seeing contemporary “liberalism” as a death wish is closer to the truth – in the sense of wishing for someone elses’ death, and making that dream come true.

There seems to be a distinct jewish origin to what little pushback there is within the jew-policed mainstream. The marker is “X isn’t a suicide pact”, eg. where X = “liberalism” or “the constitution”. The jews, including “liberal” jews, aren’t at all trying to destroy themselves or their people, they’re doing it to Whites.